Why do citys vote Dem and rural areas Republican, re-visited.

The original thread was locked, but I thought this could be an interesting discussion of political history and geography, and also a way of getting beyond some stereotypes.

Or what they FEEL is in their self-interest. Right or wrong.

Sometimes folks out in the country are some of the most compassionate folks you'll ever meet, but a certain single-issue mindset keeps them from voting with what might truly be in their self-interest.

Arent exposed to people who are different from themselves.
My siblings live in a small town called glen elder kansas ,I live in a bigger city overland park ,ks. My sisters Husbands are Republican so vicariously so are my sisters.But thats not the reason.
I remember when my eldest sister came to visit me a few years back .
She never seen a Gay person let alone a couple so she was pretty wierded out.She dosent live around any people of color so they freaked her out.
Their husbands hunt coyotes drink keystone light and watch and listen to right wing leaning media.
I think they are aclimated by their environment no gays,colored people,gun haters.etc.
They are kept away from anything different any change.After all their lives consist of Waking up, going to work, stopping by the liquor store and slamming brewskis until they goto bed.There is really nothing else to do in such a small town.They could go to college but what jobs in their town pay enough to merit a college education.
They arent necessisarily stupid just Naive.They believe what the moving picture box tells them.Usually its on fox news.

People in small areas vote republican more over one issue guns, taxes that they never get.

big cities are more of a melting pot I must admit I was uncomfortable around gays until i befriended a gay couple.
in a way its the same thing that let the scotus overrule texas sodemy laws.It was because they Knew gay people.
If you get to know different types people you learn to accept them.
You loose your fear of them. You realize you are more alike then different.

In rural Kentucky, as late as Bill Clintons election in 92, there where large swaths of rural Kentucky that voted Democratic. And also, some mountain and hill country areas that where relialably Republican.

This split goes back to the Civil warr and before, where the backcountry areas felt dominated and cut-out of the political process by the large farm and planatation regions of the Bluegrass and Pennyrile regions. So, when these slave-holding parts of the state sympathized with the South, the mountain areas remained Union. This phenomenon occured throughout the southern Appalachians, and explains, in part, why states like Tennessee was competetive for the Republicans before the breakup of the "solid south".

In Kentucky, there are some rural countys that have been more reliably Democratic than the states two largest metropolitian areas, Louisville & Lexington.

You saw a similar phenomenon in Indiana, where the southern rural countys of this state tend, still, to vote more Democratic, as they orginally where somewhat sympathetic to the South, being settled from Kentucy and Virginia.
This explains why Democrats like Lee Hamilton was able to sucessfully hold the southermost Congressional district for so many years.

Similarly, in Ohio, rural Republicanism also dates from back in history.

So, intergenerational voting trends have, in the past, played a big role in political affiliation. This is breaking down somewhat, as we are seeing the Republicans being more popular, do in part to social issues, and to their "pro-buisness" attitude. In rural areas the poliical leadership are mostly small buisnessmen, insurance agents, proffessionals, and so forth, so the GOP "friend of the buisnessman" identity is a selling point, while the social conservatism is a selling point given the socially conservative nature of many rural areas.

as the economy changes.

It is true that historically farmers in the Middle West voted Republican. They were the ones who fought in the Civil War for the cause of the Union, and tended to vote that way even as the Republican Party moved from its progressive origins (Homestead Act, etc)to being a pawn of the capitalists. One reason African-Americans were disenfranchised was because they, too, voted Republican-after all, it was the party that gave them freedom. The Democratic Party was seen as the party of traitors-indeed, the South was Solid through the beginning of the twentieth century, as the racists in the party were allowed to keep hold of their segregationist ways.

I grew up in central Illinois in the 50s and 60s. My grandparents were staunchly Republicans, but I think it was more because of the Civil War than anything economic or even political at the time. I was told the story of my ancestors who had fought in the War, of what they had done, how they were injured and broken in health-obviously, their suffering had quite an impact on the family. I don't think any of them ever voted Democratic in their life, though their children did-and their grandchildren are solid Democrats and liberals.

Being a native Chicagoan, growing up in a tight-knit inner city ethnic ghetto, everyone was a Democrat...this was the place of the ethnic political "machine" that allied with the Democrats during the New Deal and before. Also, alot of union members as this was a blue collar community, and the memory of the Depression remained strong in the older generation.

But, as people moved to the suburbs and their kids moved up the economic ladder, into management and the proffessions and became buisness owners the party affiliations started to change, and lot of the grandsons and grandaughters of this neighborhood are probably Republicans now.

about why the plains states are so solidly Republican now after an earlier history of progressivism and radicalism. The author makes a good point about the fact that those folks vote, time and again, on cultural issues but never receive what they expect because the GOP is really about corporate control and the wealthy. Vote to end abortion, receive an end to the estate tax. Vote to return organized prayer to public schools, receive plant closings and job flight overseas.

There are a lot of causes for this, but the more we can speak plainly and repetitively on the economic issues, explain to people that they're voting against their own interests, and begin to pry apart the religious/corporatist alliance on the right, the better off we, and the country, will be.

about the Populists, that this was the last somewhat sucessfull third party effort in US history, and it was primarily rural.

There was a strong Populist presence in the rural South too, at that time.

BTW, Tom Frank is a pretty good social critic. He's written a book on popular culture and advertising, "The Conquest of Cool", and edits "The Baffler", an intermittent magazine of social comment.

On cultural issues, gopsux has a good point above about ignorance due to a lack of exposure to different people. It certainly rings true in NE Oklahoma where I grew up. Given that we can't abandon social issues, how do we still make the point to these people that they're voting precisely against their own interests?

One thing to do is stop alienating religious voters. Instead of fighting a loosing battle by vilifying folks who believe in school prayer etc.. we should be inspiring them with stories that illustrate why church state separation is important to them.
You've got to win peoples hearts. You can't win their hearts with statistics only. You have to rewrite the image in their head. People will do the right thing if given a chance but most of the time they need to be lead. The right has been brilliant at this very thing.

we should be inspiring them with stories that illustrate why church state separation is important to them.

I'm not sure how we have that discussion with them when the other side is shouting about how the left wants to deny children the blessings of God in school. Not saying that it's impossible or that we shouldn't do it, I just don't know how.

Economic issues are sort of "off the table", and are complex, so its tough to use this as a motivator.

I really dont see a way of squaring the circle.

It would be interesting to see how a Democrat who is solidly and honestly socially conservative,----somone who was active in an evangelical or fundamentalist church, someone who is anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, pro-school prayer, pro death penaly....just run down the list of hot-button social issues---but is a "liberal" when it comes to economic issues...pro-union, pro-living wage anti-NAFTA, pro national health care, and so forth...how such a Democrat would do in rural areas...or even some suburban areas....

I don't get that. That's just giving them the issue we should be hammering them on, and letting them (again) define "God, guns and gays" as the bounds of acceptable discourse.

People don't like to pay taxes, or high prices, and some of these economic issues could be said to require both, so no one wants to tackle them or address them. Things like, say, naitonal health care costs money, and in the era of free trade its tough to raise wages without increaseing the cost of doing buisness... the factory goes overseas or to Mexico (but the Wal-Mart won't, true).

Also, economic are not really reducable to sound binds or emotional appeal the way social issues are. Things like these social issues seem to motivate people more, and in some cases they are tied into religion, which is more important to folks, or a more visible tangible part of their lives....

If a factory closes most people are fatalistic about that, as theres nothing they can do..this is a decision well out of their hands. Put a gay rights law on the ballot, for example, well they can vote on that and have a voice.

against the idea that it's more important or tangible than being able to make a living. Economic issues are more complex, sure - so the challenge is greater, but that doesn't mean we take them off the table.

we would have to discuss CLASS and wealth disparities. NEITHER party wants to get into a discussion of CLASS that is for sure. Even a person who is worth millions sees themselves as middle class. No one wants to accept that they are wealthy or poor, everyone is middle class or so we are told.

If white working class people saw themselves as WORKING class and allied with the black working class instead, it would be a formidable coaltion. It isn't surprising that MLK, Jr. was killed at the time he was defending working people in a strike. The powers that be did not and do not want a coalition of white working class and black working class people. Then they will know they are f*cked!

The things that could happen if the left (and those who should be on the left) refused to be triangulated.

"If you want to live like a republican, vote for the democrats."

Some get paid an hourly wage
Those earnings are taxed.
The paycheck is responsible for meeting the following needs:
shelter
food
clothing
transportation, rather by private auto or public transit; neither is free.
Education: even a public school education has expenses
Healthcare
Retirement
That paycheck goes only so far.
If this person gets laid off/downsized/right-sized/fired then there is no more hourly wage and thus no paycheck.

After paying taxes on the hourly wages a worker earns, that same worker must then pay taxes when he/she makes a purchase.

In many industrialized countries the government helps everyone meet the following needs:
Healthcare
Retirement
Education

There are some who live in between both worlds...the independent business person. Sometimes this person runs a small business on mythical main street and then sometimes this person runs a large operation that is in family hands.

Some live off investments
If employers pay employees as little as possible, thus maximizing profits for the corporation, the stock price increases.
When a company lays off employees or closes a factory or office in the US the stock price goes up.
The investors portfolio grows
Thanks to Bush and some Democratic allies those who live off of investments no longer have to pay a tax on the profit they make when they sell a stock (capital gains).
They also no longer must pay taxes when passing on an estate to their heirs, thus giving their heirs another leg up on the riff raff below them.

Basically it goes like this: what is good news to workers is bad news to the investment class.
What is bad news to workers is GOOD news to the investment class.

I wish Kerry and the Democrats would push the economic message but they dismiss it as populist and say it's a losing formula.

The cities' populations understand what the government does for them: public works. You cannot run a high-population-density area without them; imagine running Detroit on septic tanks and individually-drilled wells.

Republicans have traditionally been reticent to spend money on public works; a million invested in sewer upgrades is a million that can't be used for tax cuts. Because a toilet that doesn't back up because the sewer's too small is more important to the citydweller than a two-dollar-smaller tax bill, citydwellers will vote their self-interest--for Democrats.

Rural areas see all this money invested in the cities' public works and think, "what's in that for me? Nothing." And they're right--just about everything a farmer needs comes from a rural or mostly-rural area. Moline, Illinois, has a population of around 44,000 people, which is pretty sparse. But to a farmer, especially one with a lot of green paint in his equipment shed, Moline is the center of the universe--a blacksmith named John Deere built his steel-plow factory there. This person would rather have a nickel reduction in the tax on diesel than new sewers in Chicago, so he votes Republican--against his self-interest, because if anything the people living in the country are vastly more dependent on public largesse than are citydwellers.

get government subsidies for their operations they don't see taking this money as hypocritical to their belief systems. They say to themselves "Well, I pay my taxes so I should get something back." It's don't regulate me on the one hand but if there's a flood or a hail storm, where's my government check? The conflict is invisible to these people.

I think you do see support for taxes and programs that have a general benefit...things like rural electriciation, crop insurance, public works, things like that.

...rural folks. That's not a general benefit: that's a specific benefit, for a relatively narrow demographic.

But it's not limited to them: think of childless folks saying "Why should I pay for public schooling for other folks' kids?" as only one example.

What you have is people going by the mindset of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps on the one hand. They see themselves as rugged individualists fighting against the evil government. On the other there's not a government farm subsidy they didn't want more of.
The point is don't take money from the government you hate so much.
Be the individualist you purport to be.

What so many farmers fail to see is that Big Agri-Business is no friend to the family farmer. They walk around with their hats and coats emblazoned with the logos of companies like Pioneer and Monsanto and the like. Companies that are setting policy in DC and killing the little guy. I read the other day where Conagra or Cargill is investing in ethanol plants in Brazil. But so many little guys refuse to see this. They'll blame Carter's grain embargo for all their problems rather than looking at the real villians.

I agree about the benefits of some of these rural programs mentioned. But we've got rural electrification now. The REC's for one need to be off the public dole.

Last year, I traveled from Nashville to Upstate NY, up through Kentucky/Ohio/Western NY, then back down the coast, taking secondary routes that led through smaller rural towns and coastal tourist traps, and a few LARGE coastal tourist traps.

What stood out like a sore thumb was that the more rural, in-land commercial developments were wall-to-wall branded, chain-store America, but the coastal places were thriving with locally-owned independents.
My guess is that the determining factor was how long and how dense a place had been settled.

The more space for new development, the more likely the commercial ventures would be corporate-owned.

My theory is that the higher percentage of the population that actually owns a town, the more the population feels empowered and is less likely to hand the running of things over to people who say the right things to bring about a false sense of comfort.

And they often will never be necessary. Making schools handicap accessible when you've got no handicapped kids. And when you do get a handicapped kid, knowing the community goes above and beyond whatever the government mandated in the first place.

In a small town I lived in, the middle school was two stories and needed to be made handicap accessible. The kid we had with a handicap, from a car accident, was in high school. What the law required the school distrtict to do didn't help this kid at all. The community was small enough that the kid's parents could just say "we need x,y,z" and the community and school district made sure they got it.

I realize this isn't feasible for a city, but that's one of the reasons rural areas vote Republican. Big fixes that are logical for a city don't always translate to the immediate needs of a rural area. And the big fixes often require rural areas to spend money on things they don't need at all.

Yet, Ive seen rural countys support tax levys if there is an obvious local beneift, sort of like the example you gave...a specific tax to solve a specific problem.

This is a generalization.

In fact, it's a false dichotomy.

A better question would be why do New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and Detroit tend to consistently vote Democratic in the modern age while the votes in many other areas of the country are so difficult to predict based merely on population density.

Indeed, if we take the extremes out of the equation, the picture is a lot fuzzier. For all the complaining about the South with implicit complaints about rural Southerners we see around here, some of the most solidly Democratic areas in the South are in fact rural. Likewise, some of the most solidly Republican Southern areas are urban.

For example, consider Dallas, the most populous Southern city and 9th most populous US city. In the 2000 election, 52.6% of its votes went for Bush. The Atlanta area (Dekalb and Fulton counties) went heavily for Gore. The next two most populous counties (Cobb and Gwinnett) went equally heavily for Bush. Those Bush counties are not "rural." They're just not mega-metroplexes.

Overall, and again in general, the extremely dense population centers tend to vote Democratic, but this is not always the case. Extremely low population centers tend to vote Republican, although again this is not always the case. But, everywhere in the middle all the way out to the edges of the extremes, the correlation between urban and rural and political affiliation is not so clear.

I think you see suburban ares being more consistently Republican in some states than some rural areas, and lot of this is also regional, as you noted about southern suburbia being more GOP than some rural countys.